There's nothing around the moon yet that has enough resolution to image the hardware left at the site directly
Various bible thumpers who can't handle reality will say that's fake too, oh well.
You're losing the plot, literally.
Accepting that it may not be viable to go back for economic reasons, although that's ridiculous given NASA's budget increases over the decades since 1969, the simple fact that NASA itself has claimed they coupled with our own recent advances in commercial tech like the cell phone your holding being ought to at least give you a more questioning attitude toward the event.
TIL: iPhones are magical devices that are capable of space travel. Macfags: "if muh iPhone can't get me to the moon, how could anything else get there?"
Flawless logic, faggot.
Accepting that it may not be viable to go back for economic reasons, although that's ridiculous given NASA's budget increases over the decades since 1969
So we should go back to the moon just because we can afford it?
NASA itself has claimed they lost or destroyed the technology
So? We'd do much better to start from scratch now anyway, but why bother? "Been there, done that" The politicians seem to think it's much better to spend money on gibs rather than gee-whiz tech now anyway.
our own recent advances in commercial tech like the cell phone your holding being thousands of times more powerful than the lunar lander
And that has what to do with anything?
How much computing power do you require when you fall? According to you, gravity doesn't exist unless you have a powerful computer in your pocket.
Holy shit, that's funny.
Get your PC and jump off a tall building. According to you it will keep you completely safe (at least safer than a calculator).
This should be fun...
I love when people link the shitty LRO images like it’s some kind of mic drop, like you just did.
They show absolutely nothing and come from NASA itself.
They look like shitty pixels and come from the government organization that is suspected of taking the landings in the first place.
In other worlds only an actual retarded person would be satisfied with that as evidence in the face of all the evidence that it’s bullshit.
By their standards, corroborating it would prove they have an agenda.
Actually, I do have an agenda, it's called
There's nothing around the moon yet that has enough resolution to image the hardware left at the site directly
Yet somehow they take great videos from mars.
I think it was mars or was it that other planet ahhh Greenland or nevada er somthin.
Missing the point with this argument. If we have Hubble space images of clusters of galaxies that were supposedly taken by focusing on a blank section of the sky, why can't the same space-bound telescope take an image of the lander on the moon's surface to put the debate to rest?
If we have Hubble space images of clusters of galaxies that were supposedly taken by focusing on a blank section of the sky,
Why are you asking questions which have been answered forever ago? You just admitted you never research anything.
Focus into infinity at stellar distances and low luminosity is the exact opposite of very near focus at high luminosity.
Your claim is saying, the fact race cars are not used for commuters is proof roads don't exist. It's almost as if tools are developed for specific tasks and are unfit for tasks for which they were not intended.
Japan India and China have all independently verified
So they say they’ve verified it. Wow. I’m so convinced now.
Show me a picture of the landing sites.
Well, they can’t disprove the landings unless they send a camera and/or probe/rover to scour the moon and send back detailed photographic documentation.
This would also confirm the landings, if they happened. It should make anyone wonder why it never has.
(post is archived)